Meeting Relationship-Marketing Goals Through Social Media ... · the expanded model are suggested....

intemationai Joumal of Sport Communication, 2010,3,422-437© 2010 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Meeting Relationship-Marketing GoalsThrough Social Media: A Conceptual

Model for Sport Marketers

Jo Williams and Susan J. ChinnUtiiversity of Southern Maine, USA

Sport industry marketers have long understood the importance of nurturing cus-tomer relationships. The new challenge is how best to face the shifts in customerrelationship marketing posed by sports organizations and proactive consumers, or"prosumers." In this article, the elements of the relationship-building process arepresented with a focus on communication, interaction, and value, concepts iden-tified in Gronroos's (2(X)4) relationship-marketing process model. An expandedversion of Gronroos's model is developed to include prosumers and to describethe interactions that occur through social-media exchanges. The value of specificsocial-media tools and Web 2.0 technologies in helping sport marketers meettheir relationship-marketing goals is also discussed. Finally, directions for futureresearch employing the expanded model are suggested.

Keywords: sport marketing. Web 2.0, prosumer, digital media

Relationship marketing was described as a paradigm shift in the mid-1990s andhas continued to evolve in a range of different business environments (Gronroos,2004). During this time, consumers' expectations have changed. Tapscott (2009)discussed the fact that "net-generation" consumers have been immersed in technol-ogy and two-way communications since birth and expect businesses to engage withthem and embrace relationships. Today's sport marketers operate in an environ-ment where consumers of all demographic groups are increasingly literate withsocial media and have significant advancements in technology at their fingertips(Meadows-Klue, 2008). This situation presents opportunities and challenges formarketers, who must adopt new approaches and take advantage of social mediasuch as blogs, social networks, content communities, forums and bulletin boards,and content aggregators. Social media can be defined as the tools, platforms, andapplications that enable consumers to connect, communicate, and collaborate withothers. Social media are distinguished from other forms of communication becausethey support user participation on a massive, collective scale; the contributions arealso distributed among the participants to view, share, and improve (Bradley, 2010).

The authors are with the School of Business, University of Southern Maine, Portland, ME.

422 .

Meeting Relationship-Marketing Goals 423

The emergence of scx:ial media and Web 2.0 technologies has the potentialto significantly affect connections with customers (now often characterized as"prosumers") and provide new directions and benefits in relationship marketing(Griffiths, 2008; Haverstein, 2008). The concept of prosumers was introduced byToffler ( 1984), who proposed that the functions of producers and consumers wouldblend to a point where individuals would be involved in designing and manufactur-ing products. In this context, the consumer is no longer a passive recipient but seeksactive engagement, including opportunities to customize and personalize prcxluctsas part of the economic exchange process. According to Tapscott (2(X)9), today'sprosumers are actively using Web 2.0 technologies to engage in increasing levelsof collaboration and interactivity with organizations.

Many sports organizations have embraced relationship-marketing approaches(Harris & Ogbonna, 2009; Lapio & Speter, 2000; Stavros, Pope, & Winzar, 2008)and recognized that their consumers are highly involved "with a desire for long-term association with a team sport" (Shani, 1997, p. 9). The potential value andbenefits of using social media to meet relationship-marketing goals is significant,and in an environment such as sport it may be particularly relevant in supportingconsumers as they become active contributors. As sports organizations rely on repeatpurchases of tickets and promotional merchandise and seek to retain loyal consum-ers, strategic relationship-marketing practices that strengthen these behaviors mayhave the potential to provide significant competitive advantages.

In this article, the elements of the relationship-building process are presentedwith a focus on communication, interaction, and value, concepts identified inGronroos's (2(X)4) relationship-marketing process model. An expanded version ofGronroos's model is developed to include prosumers and describe the interactionsthat occur through social-media exchanges. The value of specific social-mediatools and Web 2.0 technologies in helping sport marketers meet their relationship-marketing goals is also discussed. Finally, directions for future research employingthe expanded model are suggested.

Relationship-Marketing ProcessThe goals of relationship marketing are to build long-term relationships with theorganization's best customers, generating further business and ultimately profit. It isalso designed to contribute to strengthening brand awareness, increa.se understand-ing of consumer needs, enhance loyalty, and provide additional value for consumers(Stavros et al., 2008). The relationship-marketing approach was first introduced byBerry (1983) in the service marketing field and is now considered part of contem-porary marketing practice. Relationship marketing emphasizes the retention anddevelopment of existing customers and highlights the mutual benefits that arise(Copulsky & Wolf, 1990). Gummesson (1999) di.scussed relationship marketingand strcs.sed the importance of interactions, relationships, and networks as threecentral components of the process. Gronroos (2004) further defined relationshipmarketing as "the process of identifying and establi.shing, maintaining, enhancing,and when necessary terminating relationships with customers and other stakehold-ers, so that the objectives of all parties are met" (p. 101 ). As marketing practice hascontinued to evolve, there has also been increased recognition of service-orientedapproaches in which "intangibility, exchange processes and relationships are

424 Williams and Chinn

central" (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, p. 2). Vargo and Lusch also suggested that consum-ers be acknowledged as active participants and coproducers in this process. In 2009,Deighton and Kornfeld (2009) considered a model of consumer empowerment inwhich digital media were used to support a variety of customer interactions andrelationships. Consumers were again recognized as proactive communicators, whichdiffered from the passivity displayed by mass-media audiences.

Gronroos (2004) presented relationship marketing as an integrative processrequiring three key elements: communication, interaction, and value. Focusedattention, incorporating each component strategically, allows marketers to developeffective long-term relationships with customers. Communication is a basic elementin any integrated marketing communications plan; however, integrated marketingcommunication plans typically focus on consistency of messaging but often lackemphasis on the development of lasting relationships and value orientation. Rela-tionship marketing is supported by integrated marketing communication activityand relies on planned messages to assist in the process of establishing, maintain-ing, and enhancing relationships. Two-way, or even multiway, communicationsare used to provide opportunities for customers to interact and express their needsto the organization. The planned communications in relationship marketing oftenemphasize messaging provided through traditional marketing activities such asadvertising, public relations, sales promotion, and personal selling. Duncan andMoriarty (1997) suggested that additional sources of communication should beconsidered in relationship building: for example, service messages (e.g., contactwith sales stall) and unplanned messages (e.g., team-related chat rooms). Consum-ers interact with different types of messages continually throughout a relationship,and messaging can originate with either party. Interactions are considered centralto the relationship-marketing process (Gronroos, 2004). Interactions occur throughboth direct and indirect channels, which combine to create a consumer experi-ence. Holmlund (1997) proposed four levels of interaction in developing ongoingrelationships. The process begins with small interactions (or acts) such as phonecalls or greetings by personnel. Interrelated acts are bound together as episodesaggregating the original interactions. Multiple episodes form sequences, whichwhen combined lead to relationships. A sport-related example could be applied tothe interactions of fans with their favorite team beginning with personnel contactson entering the stadium. A sequence could include concession and merchandisepurchases, participation in event-related promotions, and half-time entertainment.The aggregation of interactions during multiple sequences (attendance at addi-tional games) forms the ongoing relationship. Gummesson (1999) recognized thatconsumers are knowledgeable partners and suggested that collaboration should beproactively encouraged in the interaction process.

According to Collins (1999), marketers must understand consumers' valuesystem and recognize the role of internal processes. Value judgments based on theworth or importance perceived by consumers is embedded throughout the exchangeprocess. For example, product design elements and organizational processes mustbe consistently aligned with the needs of consumers. Gronroos (2004) suggestedthat value is transferred and also created during the interaction process as customerslook to fulfill important needs on an ongoing basis. The value process is built on thecontinued interactions that provide additional worth over time. Gummesson (1999)


also highlighted the importance of opportunities for joint value creation that couldbe used to create a long-term "win-win" for both parties. Effective management isneeded to ensure that the combined effects of planned communication and mean-ingful interactions lead to value-added outcomes for consumers (Gronroos, 2004).

Relationship Marketing in the Sport IndustryRelationship marketing has been used in the sport marketing field in a variety ofsettings, and a number of sport-specific models have been presented. Shani (1997)suggested that the sport performance element of the industry was most similar toservices and would therefore be most likely to benefit from relationship-marketingapproaches. Sport consumers were also recognized as "as highly involved consum-ers with a desire for long-term association with a team sport" (Shani, 1997, p. 9).Shani suggested that sport marketers begin this process by developing segmentationstrategies and then move along a continuum, recognizing the role of niche market-ing and database marketing in developing a "rich and detailed" (p. 14) platformlor relationship marketing.

More recently, an extension of Shani's framework in the context of Australiansport was developed by Stavros et al. (2008). This model highlighted a projectedconvergence of relationship marketing with the increased .sophistication anddevelopment of sport marketing practice. Organizational structure, research, and asystematic use of relationship-marketing strategies were highlighted as significantcomponents of this model. Girginov et al. (2009) considered the use of Web sitesin relationship-marketing activities of Canadian national sport organizations. Theyfound the promotion of sport participation through Web-based interactions to belacking in these organizations, particularly in the use of information-gatheringand -dissemination activities.

Kim (2008) examined the relationship-quality aspect of relationship marketingin a sport context by considering the impact of seven relationship-quality constructs(trust, commitment, satisfaction, love [liking], intimacy, self-connection, and reci-procity) on sport-consumption behaviors (media consumption, purchase of licensedmerchandise, and attendance). Kim found that relationship quality was a predictorof behavioral outcomes, specifically, that fans who perceived higher levels of rela-tionship quality intended to consume more sport through media, buy more licensedproducts, and attend more games. The results of this study validated the importanceof strong relationships between sports organizations and fans. Furthermore, Kimsuggested that team personnel should recognize relationship building throughoutorganizational decision making.

Bee and Kahle (2006) presented a functional approach to understanding howand why sport consumers engage in relationship marketing. They stated that "rela-tionships that are internalized and based on shared values have the deepest level ofinfluence and are most durable and consistent" (p. 109). Other researchers (Harris& Ogbonna, 2009; Lapio & Speter, 2000) have examined the use of relationship-marketing strategies in specific .sports settings. Harris and Ogbonna examined thedynamics of relationship-marketing strategies used in the English Premier Leagueand highlighted the different relational status of fans. Lapio and Speter discussedthe successful implementation of relationship marketing by NASCAR. The impact


of technology for sport marketers has also been explored on a limited basis. Glad-den (1996) highlighted activities such as the use of Internet-based contests in anattempt to enrich customer databases. Greenwell and Andrew (2006) examinedcommunication preferences of baseball consumers and suggested that organiza-tions embrace the potential of viral marketing, electronic word of mouth, socialnetworking, and blogging. More focused research is just beginning to emerge thataddresses the explosion of social-media tools using Web 2.0 technologies.

Opportunities for Sociai-i\/ledia Toolsin the Sport Industry

Collaborative, user-friendly social-media tools are based on what is known as Web2.0 technologies. The term \Neb 2.0, coined by Tim O'Reilly (2005), has beendefined as "a collection of open-source, interactive and user-controlled onlineapplications expanding the experiences, knowledge, and market power of theusers as participants in business and social prcx:esses" (Constantinides & Foun-tain, 2008, p. 252). The key characteristics of Web 2.0 are that (a) the Web itselfbecomes the platform and is based on using open standards, decentralization, andInternet protocols (e.g., XML, HTML, SOAP AJAX); (b) the Web is used to har-ness the collective intelligence of its users, also known as the "wisdom of crowds(Surowiecki, 2004); (c) data and, in context, content, represent the value ratherthan hardware or software; (d) users become developers; (e) a business model forsoftware development emphasizes open platforms and shareability; (0 applicationsare seamlessly deployed over any type of device (e.g., PC, mobile phone); and (g)there is a rich user experience facilitated by technologies for animation, visualiza-tion, and interaction (O'Reilly, 2(X)5).

Informal user networks supported by interactive applications allow consumersto play a central role in producing, designing, publishing, or editing content andtogether create a dynamic and interactive environment (Krishnamurthy & Dou,2(X)8). Constantinides and Fountain (2008) classified Web 2.0 tools and technolo-gies into five main categories: blogs, social networks, content communities (e.g.,YouTube), forums and bulletin boards, and content aggregators (e.g., RSS feeds).The increased availability of simple-to-use technologies helps consumers createcontent on their own terms, with or without official involvement on the corporatelevel (Anderson, 2008; Tapscott, 2009). Web 2.0 tools can be used to provide arich environment for relationship marketing with significant opportunities basedon their capacity to expand communication, embrace consumers' diversity andself-expression, and allow open "conversations in the marketplace" (Meadows-Klue, 2008, p. 248).

Sport industry marketing personnel are also considering the impact of Web2.0 technologies on their operations and customer relationship-building activitiesand are beginning to assess the power of these tools indirectly accessing and com-municating with their consumers (Fisher, 2008). The SportsBusiness Journal ofNovember 17, 2008, contained a special section that focused on the ability of theindustry to understand the potential of Web 2.0 and social media. Sport proper-ties already have presence on social networks such as Facebook and encourage


consumers to join as fans. According to Fisher (2(X)8), teams view their presenceson Facebook as a way to strengthen relationships with fans, and as membershipcontinues to grow, further opportunities are likely to emerge. For example, inJanuary 2009, Facebook reported a 276% increa.se (over a 6-month period) inthe number of 35- to 54-year-old users and an overall increase in users of 58.9%(Corbett, 2009). The challenge for the sport industry is to embrace these new tools,strategically manage their social-media presence, and gain greater understandingof the potential value of Web 2.0 tools in meeting relationship-marketing goals.

Requirements for Participantsin the Relationship-Marketing Process

Until recently, relationship marketing fcKused on companies' building a traditionalcustomer base (Harridge-March & Quinton, 2009). Today, prosumers' behaviorhas blurred conventional ideas about the role of the consumer. Engaged andempowered consumers with direct access to business organizations expect to beinvolved in the creation of the next generation of products and .services (Tapscott,2009). Organizations understand the importance of creating connections bothonline and off-line. The newest relationships to consider are those between sportsorganizations and prosumers that are facilitated by social media and interactionsamong the prosumers themselves. The sports organization seeks to use socialmedia to achieve its relationship-marketing goals of brand building and customerloyalty. These relationships are different from those supported by more traditionalmarketing activities in which the consumer was recruited and retained to sup-port the buyer-seller relationship with the organization. One way this has beencharacterized is as a "loyalty ladder" (Harridge-March & Quinton, 2009)." Theloyalty ladder focused on relationship building from an organization-to-customer(i.e., "end-user") perspective, from identifying likely customers, turning them intoprospects, and once they became customers, nurturing them so they developed intoloyal "advix-ates" (Harridge-March & Quinton. 2009). Prosumers, however, maynot be customers of a particular organization but members of the greater online orvirtual community on the Internet that serve both as intermediaries or intluencersin the relationship process. One of the chief characteristics of prosumers is theiruse of social media in which the content is generated by peers. Prosumers may beespecially influential because of declining trust in traditional sources of informa-tion and the popularity of personalized recommendations from peers. Prosumershave received less attention for their role in relationship building, as they infiuenceboth the sport organizations and their traditional customers (Mitussis, O'Malley,& Patterson, 2006; Harridge-March & Quinton, 2009).

Table 1 provides more detail about sports organizations and prosumers interms of their needs for communication, interaction, and value. Sports organiza-tions recognize that s(x;ial media can enable powerful platforms to reach a widegroup of consumers. Organizational needs revolve around engaging prosumers tocontribute to the lifetime value of the relationship. For prosumers, social mediameet their needs for easy ways to connect with organizations using technology thatthey use in other areas of their life and promote empowerment.

428 Williams and Chinn ,

Table 1 Relationship-Marketing Elements: Communication,Interaction, and Value Among Participants

Communication

Sports • New forms oforganizations planned and

unplanned messages•* • Social media inte-

grated into market-ing strategy

• Decreased relianceon traditional mediachannels

Prosumers • User-generatedcontent initiated bycurrent and futurecustomers

• Direct conversationenabled by reviews.ideas, opinions

Interaction

• Support lor two-waycommunication

• Use of a variety ofdigital media

• Contributions ofconsumers occurringat all stages of prod-uct life cycle

• Reliance on dynamicmedia

• Natural platformsfor connection andcommunity mem-bership

• Creation of collec-tive intelligence

Value

• Increased interac-tion

• Recognized impor-tance of consumerparticipation

• Increased empow-erment

• Recognized third-party influencers.tastemakers, andchampions

• Allowance formany voices

Sports Organizations' RequirementsFrom a traditional marketing perspective, communication requirements from thesports organization emphasize the control of messaging as part of a planned strategy.Elements of a marketing communication plan, such as the nature and titning ofpromotions, are still core parts of the marketing strategy. Sports organizations alsocontinue communication through responses to custotner inquiries and other formsof traditional customer service. These communications form the basis for ongoinginteractions and add value to the company in terms of setting new marketing objec-tives, reallocating resources, or more efficiently targeting customer segments. Withprosumers the requirements shift because there is less organizational control overthe consumer relationship. However, most organizations now recognize that newavenues of communication may lead Internet "spectators" to become customers(Harridge-March & Quinton, 2009). Therefore, communication strategies mustinclude how to launch messages that reach as much of the community as possible.At the same time, a strategy is needed to respond to unplanned messages such asblog posts about the company. To nurture this interaction, the emphasis is on two-way communications using multiple platforms. Organizations may also solicitmessages. For example. Mountain Dew let fans plan the Dew Tour by providinginput in the design and development process. Fans also have the opportunity to per-sonalize numerous products (posters, sneakers) associated with the tour (Lukowitz,2010). The potential value for the company is linked to increased interaction andparticipation with the prosumer.


Prosumers' RequirementsProsumers often employ communication technologies outside the usual customerchannels (e.g., corporate Weblog) such as independent blog postings, viral videos,and so on and have freedom to engage in direct communications with other con-sumers. In addition, prosumers frequently seek to reach a broad audience, so chan-nels with social-bookmarking capabilities or blogrolls may provide an increasedprobability of being found and heard. Their influence and, hence, their value maybecome directly proportional to the degree of interaction they have both withorganizations and with each other. They can also become powerful influences astastcmakers and champions because of the multiple avenues for interaction thatsocial media provide (Tapscott, 2009). A tastemaker or champion could be a widelyfollowed blogger, popular sports figure, or journalist to whom both other consumersand sports organizations pay attention. Social media enable prosumers to developtheir own voices in the form of customer reviews, innovative ideas, and opinions.They also are exposed to other voices within the social network that may providethem with additional information. Social media thus add value to their relation-ship with the sports organization through developing a sense of empowerment. Forexample, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA) tapped into theirmost passionate advocates and created a comprehensive online strategy. By using arange of social media, the NTRA was able to open direct lines of communicationto fans who provided input, often directly to the CEO, on the future direction ofthe sport (http://www.ntra.com).

Development of an Enhanced Modelfor the Relationship-Marketing Process

The model in this article is adapted from Gronroos's (2004) model includinginteraction, communication, and value in the relationship-marketing process. Inthe original model, interaction was initiated by an organization through directcommunication and through sales events, followed by other mass communication,public relations, and dircct-to-consumer activities to which customers reacted. Mostof these messages were planned messages or were customer responses related tocompleting the sales transaction. The direction of the flow was linear, directedby the organization through sequenced interactions in which customers reactedto episodes such as bill payment or shipping—that is, relating to the commercialtransaction. Unplanned messages, (e.g.. third-party news stories or customer wordof mouth) arose from responses to product and service messages coming from theorganization and became part of the process. Gronroos also suggested that thosepositive unplanned tnessages were the ones that form the interaction (2004, p. 107).

The Gronroos model (2004) assumed that the relationship-building processwas initiated by the organization and focused on a planned communications strat-egy. With prosumers who use social media, this assumption may no longer bevalid. Someone posting a blog comment or tweet may have not used the productor service at all but simply formed opinions about it from others and was sharingthem regardless of purchase intent. Furthermore, this interaction may not evenbe positive in nature and could still result in sales. Anderson (2008) provides a


compelling example of a consumer contest to create YouTube ads for the ChevyTahoe. Among the submissions, many were negative—for example, relating thepurchase of an SUV to global warming or social irresponsibility. However, thenegative ads had more views than did the positive ads; in some cases, they "drove"viewers to the Chevrolet Web site and even resulted in conversions, f his sameexample underscores the fact that organizations no longer are "in charge" of theinteraction and do not always control content of the advertising message.

The new model depicted in Figure I presents the interaction between thesports organization and prosumers in a more nonlinear fashion. The arrows in themodel represent multiple pathways for two-way communication to occur. Fromthe sports organization to prosumers, communication strategies still include tradi-tional planned communications (e.g., press relea.ses, advertising, e-mail). Becauseprosumers want direct conversations in the social-media environment, organizationshave embraced blogs and social networks as part of planned promotional strategies(e.g., posting short messages on Twitter, establishing a Facebook presence; Tapscott,2009). Sports organizations also have the opportunity to interact with prosumerson a more informal, unplanned basis (e.g., reactions posted to a third-party socialnetwork or to .someone's blog).

Flows from prosumers to the sports organization could include responses tocompany communications, such as shipment acknowledgments and requests forinput into product design, as well as unplanned messages such as posting requestsfor support, chatting with customer-service representatives, or supplying commentson the organization's own Web site. In addition to direct communications, prosum-ers engage in dialogue with other consumers, using social media to convey "wordof mouth" messages about the organization to a wide audience. Closing the loop,it may be that prosumers who tweet about a company may in turn be "followed"by an organization seeking to better understand consumer needs by tracking com-ments or customer reviews. All directions of communication help establish a highdegree of interactivity above and beyond the expected company-customer dialog.Value is represented in the center of the model as the lasting output created throughthis integrative process and shared by the sports organization and prosumers. Theexpectation is that the combined effects of communication and interaction fulfillcustomer needs and contribute to the creation of joint value (Gronroos, 2004). Forthe organization the value may be tangible, such as new market research data minedfrom the interactions (Gummesson, 1999). This value, however, is predicated onthe use of appropriate digital metrics.

Using Web 2.0 Technologiesin Sport Industry Relationship Marketing

The application of this model in the sport industry highlights opportunities fororganizations to capitalize on developing Web 2.0 technologies to strengthen rela-tionship-marketing approaches. The expanded model's communication pathwayshighlight the need for .sports organizations to pay attention to and then leveragethe relationships they build with prosumers, both as customers and as intermedi-aries and influencers of purchase decisions. By leveraging Web 2.0 technologies,organizations can also satisfy not only their own requirements identified in Table


1 but also prosumer requirements as producers and consumers (Tapscott, 2009;Toffler, 1984). Proactive use of Web 2.0 tools in engaging customers in direct,personalized, multidimensional communications and interactions adds value andstrengthens relationships. Growing numbers of professional sports organizationsare using social media to reach fans in dynamic ways.

There are a number of goals in relationship marketing that are especiallyrelevant to the sport industry. In particular, sport organizations seek to buildrelationships that will enhance fan loyalty to help build the brand (Stavros et al.,2008). Customers, in this case fans, may then become long-term and enthusiasticadvocates with whom lasting relationships can be maintained. Other relevant goalsfor relationship marketers in sport include understanding consumer needs, enhanc-ing the value of the relationship to the customer, and increasing satisfaction, allleading to increased profitability. Table 2 describes the role of blogs, social net-works, content communities, forums and bulletin boards, and content aggregatorsin meeting the.se relationship-marketing goals. Technologies in each Web 2.0 toolcan be used to support the model elements of communication, interaction, andvalue shown in Figure 1.

Using Blogs in Relationship MarketingOrganizational blogging activity lends itself to the communication, interaction,and value of the relationship-marketing process. Blogs are typically incorporatedin a team Web site or social network and provide natural opportunities for com-munication and interaction. The NTRA provides an example of a well-developedblogging strategy that has been effective in meeting its relationship-marketinggoals and strengthening long-term partnerships with fans. NTRA President andCEO Alex Waltrep maintains a regularly updated blog called Straight Up (http://www.ntra.com), which encourages racing fans to provide feedback and opinionsdirectly to the leadership of the sport. The communications and comments on thisblog clearly demonstrate the value of the relationship with the fans and the two-way nature of the dialogue. Customer satisfaction can be increased through theseconversations, and the NTRA is able to address goals related to increasing theirunderstanding of consumer needs.

The use of microblogging sites such as Twitter has grown dramatically, andthese may also be used to strengthen relationships with fans. Twitter enables sportsorganizations, coaches, and athletes to provide instant communication to fans whohave elected to follow them. Real-time access to team information is provided byboth personnel and athletes from a variety of locations (courtside, kx;kcr room,boardroom) and allows fans to feel increasingly connected to their favorite teams.The instant nature of these unique interactions offers additional value for the fans.For example, Shaquille O'Neal's success with almost 2 million followers (http://twitter.com/THE_REAL_SHAQ) highlights the interest levels of fans who adoptthis medium to feel close to the action (Fisher, 2009). In early 2009, NFL Com-missioner Roger Goodell challenged the NFL staff to find new ways to reach fansand build long-term partnerships. As a result, the NFL vice president of corporatecommunications regularly tweets a behind-the-scenes view of the league and currentissues. This platform also allows the NFL to strengthen its brand-building activitiesin a new environment (Fisher, 2009).

(OooO)ÇIre¿L'E(/>co0)ce£q0)O

)

cOT

"5)0)

CM

Ç•5T3C

C 3

oCO(OO)

_om

•a o.2«,

•5.2 o

.2 S^2

o '^ p

2 3en

o

l.i'B.o

g.-

0) 11!lili

x:0/JT3O

3

C•-

O CO

i i

C -i

U

UN" o o

iI ë-=

i_ cd

Cd

£ •- •- .S-v; 3 M

"S•s c

i- ulllî9

tj ^

"râD. 4j

c c

O

-O

- •=

5 o-a

^ iÀ

c <*- -a

3 0

0)

2'S

I•II

11«

X o

c >

GO ti:

o w2

c x: oo u .r:

•n 3

D.

1:1l

E c

ta

-a 'S

u- o.

t;aj —

o

,^ 3

illïi w

'J

^ y

O

ï3C

l r\

^ r-\

f>

•o x:

.—

O.£••= b

.2

i2 —t/3

p

"u oC

'S(1)

CJ-

Cg

o cra •-

-=

g.E

81^0)

o>

D.Co

< g â-ë E

x:O

il3" 2

w

1.1 nrE^

t: w

IIs

c c3

CC

O

•« ¿2 o -sCL u

c .S

« ? 9-I,5

ïa> o

E"-3

Ët« cd

*-

il

g gJ2

3 a.

; ••

u >"

1) i- _

^ o S n 2

a:obc1•g2CQ

3 .=

o «

432


Communication Communication

Figure 1 — Model showing communication, interaction, and value creation between a sportsorganization and prosumers (proactive consumers) in the relationship-marketing process.

Using Social Networks in Relationship MarketingMany teams (e.g.. Phoenix Suns, Seattle Seahawks, NewYork Rangers) have devel-oped tobust, branded social-networking sites. Social networks provide fans witha range of features that are built around opportunities for engagement and allowthe team to boost fan loyalty, a key relationship-marketing goal. Social networksalso support the relalionship-tnarketing process by supporting communicationsuch as sharing opinions and reactions, contributing content through embeddedapplications that allow video and photo sharing, or even by embedding externalwidgets (small applications with dynamic content such as counters, MP3 players,etc.) into a social-network page. These mechanisms allow the team to increaseits understanding of customer needs and strengthen long-tertn partnerships. ThePhoenix Suns' Emmy-Award-winning social network. Planet Orange (http://www.nba.com/suns/fans/planet_orange.html), empowers fans through numerous


interaction opportunities that provide and create joint value. Digital-media manag-ers and marketing staff incorporate a variety of strategies, use varied technologies,and provide added value through a range of promotional strategies. Planet Orangemembers receive exclusive benefits such as invitations to behind-the-scenes eventsand opportunities to meet other Planet Orange members in person at selected homegames. Fan interactions through opportunities to contribute content also lead toincreased loyalty to the team.

Using Content Communities in Relationship MarketingContent communities such as YouTube and Flikr provide a variety of interactionoptions for fans that add value by allowing them to personalize and control theirrelationship with the team or sport. Access to content communities can be increasedby embedding these tools in traditional Web sites or social networks. For example,the Boston Celtics YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/bostonceltics),a channel sponsored by the team, allows fans access to unique video content andprovides new opportunities to enhance loyalty and brand building. Fans can sub-scribe to the YouTube channel and participate in discussions related to the videocontent. Fans' ability to be involved in the creation of content is particularly rel-evant to relationship marketing because it provides a natural forum for increasinginteraction and peer-to-peer participation. Fans can upload video or photo contentthat demonstrates their relationship with the team and places them in the center ofthe communication process. In addition, the potential of two-way communicationbetween fans and their favorite team provides further opportunities to developpartnerships and increase understanding of consumer needs.

Using Forums and Bulletin Boards in Relationship MarketingAs with social networks and content communities, message boards and forumsprovide increased value based on the opportunities for fans to communicate andinteract with each other These tcKils provide the opportunity for sports teams tomeet goals related to increasing their understanding of consumer needs, enhanc-ing loyalty, and strengthening long-term partnerships. For example, the NewYorkGiants Fan Zcinc (http://boards.giants.com/) includes message boards that allow fansto share their thoughts on a range of topics. Fans can easily join the conversationon topics related to a variety of team activities and by doing so demonstrate theircommitment to the team. Frequent contributors are often rated by other users andestablish credibility in the community. This kind of user-generated content alsoprovides value to teams in term of feedback and allows fans to feel empowered insharing their "voices."

Using Content Aggregators in Relationship MarketingContent aggregation includes tools to manage, summarize, and deliver content ofinterest to users. Probably the most widely recognized aggregation tool is RSS (realsimple syndication), which is used to create news feeds. An example from MajorLeague Baseball is a Web page that provides links to RSS feeds for news from eachteam (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/rss/index.jsp). Providing consumers with the abilityto generate their own feeds can meet organizational goals of increasing customer


satisfaction and enhancing loyalty by providing a way to personalize content andprovide instant notification when content has changed. If sports organizations cananalyze the news items that are selected, content aggregators can also be helpfulin meeting the objective of understanding consumer needs.

The use of content aggregators may enhance the value of the relationship-building process. For many consumers, receiving relevant content may be an endin itself, but others may share the output from their feeds by attaching thetn to blogposts or social-networking pages. In addition, they may create mash-ups, linking thecontent to other Web content, for example, combining Google maps with an RSSfeed about a team's schedule. Sport marketers should ensure that content aggrega-tion is easy to do and prominently featured on their digital platforms.

Conclusions and Directions for Future ResearchSports organizations already recognize the benefits of long-term relationships withtheir consumers and are now considering the strategic value of social media. In thisarticle we adapted Gronroos's relationship-marketing mcxlel (2004) to include theu.se of Web 2.0 tools in the sport industry. In particular, the impact of the prosumercommunity on the relationship-marketing proce.ss was acknowledged. Communi-cation, interaction, and value were emphasized in the model, and examples wereprovided to demonstrate the effectiveness of Web 2.0 technologies in meeting avariety of relationship-marketing goals. As professional sports teams take advan-tage of the "highly involved nature" of their fans (Shani, 1997), the use of socialmedia provides new opportunities to gain maximum leverage in strengthening andbuilding long-term relationships.

The model presented highlights the importance of social media in therelationship-marketing process and recognizes consumers as increasingly knowl-edgeable partners and collaborators in the process (i.e., as prosumers). The modelalso supports that notion that varied sources of messaging and content in the Web2.0 environment may be needed to reach different types of consumers. Researchis required to investigate the needs of a variety of prosumer subgroups and toconsider the value and effectiveness of specific Web 2.0 technologies in meetingthose needs. In addition, greater understanding is needed relating to the willingnessand/or readiness of consumers to become active participants in social media. Thepotential for new or improved digital revenue streams should also be considered.For example, the increased potential to improve relationships with "occasional"sport consumers may be used to increase sales of team merchandise though Internetportals embedded in social networks.

Previous research in relationship marketing included discussion of the use oftechnology to develop and manage detailed customer databases for use in relation-ship building (Gladden, 1996; Meadows-Klue, 2008; Stavros et al., 2008). A benefitof many Web 2.0 technologies is the availability and potential use of embeddedtracking and data-collection tools. Tools that require membership information canbe used to increase access to users' demographic and psychographic characteristics.Levels of interaction can also be evaluated to identify and categorize different typesof fans and may provide a basis for future segmentation strategies. Data collectionshould also be linked to the evaluation of the success of different tools in meetingspecific goals.


Given the dynamic nature of the Web 2.0 environment, additional tools areconstantly being developed. Mobile technologies such as smart phones with Internetconnectivity have become interchangeable with computers. In addition, mobileapplications for sport and social networking are proliferating on a regular basis.Increased opportunities for personalized and instant communication continue todevelop and allow consumers to be connected at all times. The challenge for sportmarketers is the continued assessment and adoption of the technologies that bestenhance the relationship-marketing process. Which tools will be meaningful in con-tinuing to build relationships? It is likely that service-focused tools that are simpleand easy to use will encourage the highest level of participation and interaction.Thesport industry has embraced social media and appears to be moving in a directionwhere organizational commitment to them is more widely acknowledged. Industrymeetings have focused on sharing best practices in implementation, brand building,and potential revenue generation. Teams and leagues have also hired digital-mediaspecialists to manage these operations. Sports fans stated their position some timeago by becoming prosumers, adopting new technologies as part of their lives, andcreating a strong voice in interacting with their favorite teams. Gronroos (2(X)4) andStavros et al. (2008) emphasized the need for an integrative relationship-marketingprocess embedded in the culture of the organization. As sport marketers capitalizeon social media in meeting relationship-marketing goals, it is important to ensurethat these tools are integrated and build meaningful relationships through oppor-tunities for communication, interaction, and value.

ReferencesAnderson, C. (2008). The long tail. New York: Hyperion.Bee, C.C, & Kahle. L.R. (2006). Relationship marketing in sports: A functional approach.

Sport Marketing Quarterly, ¡5(2), 102-110.Berry, L.L. (1983). Relationship marketing. In L.L. Berry, G.L. Shostack, & G. Upah

(Ekls.), Emerging perspectives on services marketing (pp. 25-28). Chicago: AmericanMarketing Association.

Bradley, A. (2010). /4 new definition of social media. Retrieved August 26, 2010, from http://blogs.gartner.com/anthony_bradley/2010/0l/07/a-new-delînition-of-social-media/

Collins, B. ( 1999). Pairing relationship value and marketing. Australasian Marketing .lour-nal, 7(1), 6.V71.

Constantinides, E., & Fountain, S.J. (2008). Web 2.0: Conceptual foundations and market-ing issues. Journal of Direct, Data, and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(3), 231-244.

Copulsky, J.R., & Woir, M.J (1990). Relationship marketing: Positioning for the future. TheJournal of Business Strategy, ¡1(4). 16-20.

Corbett, P. (2009). 2009 Facebook demographics and stati.stics report. Retrieved September10. 2010. from http://www.istrategylabs.com/2009-facebook-demographics-and-statistics-report-276-growth-in-35-54-year-old-users/

Deighton, J., & Kornfeld, L. (2009). Interactivity's unanticipated consequences for marketersand marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22. 4-10.

Duncan, T., & Moriarty, S. (1997). Driving brand value. New York: McGraw Hill.Fisher, E. (2008). Social perspective. Sport Business Journal, //(29), 15-23.Fisher, E. (2009). Flight of fancy. Sport Business Journal, 12(1), 1, 15-17.Girginov, V., Taks, M., Boucher., Martyn, S., Holman, M., & Dixon, J. (2009). Canadian

national sport organizations' use of the Web for relationship marketing in promotingsport participation. International Journal of Sport Communication, 2(2), 164-184.


Gladden, J. (1996). Sportsmarket bytes: The ever expanding impact of technology on sportmarketing: Part I. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 5(3), I.VI4.

Greenwell, T.C., & Andrew, D.P. (2006). Communicating with different customer segments:A case from minor-league baseball. In J.D. James (Ed.). Spori marketing researchacross the spectrum: Research from emerging, developing, and established scholars(pp. 1.'Í7-164). Morgantown. WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Griffiths. J. (2008. Spring). Web 2.0 is not about technology: It's about human relationships.Market Leader, 41-45.

Gronroos, C. (2004). The relationship marketing process: Communication, interaction,dialogue, value. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 19(2), 99-113.

Gummesson, E. ( 1999). Total relationship marketing. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.Harridge-March, S., & Quinton, S. (2009). Virtual snakes and ladders: Social networks

and the relationship marketing loyalty ladder. The Marketing Review, 9(2), 171-181.Harris. L.C., & Ogbonna. E. (2(X)9). The dynamics underlying service firm customer

relationships: Insights from a study of English premier league soccer fans. Journal ofService Reseanh, 10, 382-.399.

Haverstein. H. (2008). Companies are looking for new ways to measure Web 2.0. Comput-erworld, 42(45), 14-15.

Holmlund, M. (1997). In Gronroos, C. (2004). The relationship marketing process: Com-munication, interaction, dialogue, value. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,/9(2), 99-113.

Kim, Y.K. (2008). Relationship framework in sport management: How relationship qualityaffects sport consumption behaviors (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://etd.lcla.edu/UF/UFEOO22.'i93/kim_y.pdf

Krishnamurthy, S., & Dou. W. (2008). Advertising with user-generated content: A frameworkand research agenda. Journcd of Interactive Advertising, 8(22), 1-9.

Lapio, R.. & Speter. K.M. (2000). NASCAR: A lesson in integrated and relationship market-ing. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9(2), 85-95.

Lukowitz, K. (2010). Mountain Dew lets fans plan tour, events. Marketing Daily. RetrievedSeptember 5, 2010, from http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.show Article&art_aid= 130980

Meadows-Klue, D. (2008). Falling in love 2.0: Relationship marketing for the Facebookgeneration. Journal of Direct, Data, and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(3), 245-250.

Mitussis. D.. O'Malley. L., & Patterson, M. (2006). Mapping the re-engagement of CRMwith relationship marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 40(5/6), 572-589.

O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the nextgeneration of software. Retrieved September 10, 2010, from htip://oreilly.com/web2/arehive/what-is-web-20.html

Shani, D. ( 1997). A framework for implementing relationship marketing in the sport industry.Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6(2). 9-15.

Stavros. C , Pope, N.K.. & Winzar. H. (2008). Relationship marketing in Australian profes-sional sport: An extension of the Shani framework. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17(3),13.5-145.

Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Random House.Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital. New York: McGraw Hill.Toffler, A. (1984). The third wave. New York: Bantam Books.Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal

of Marketing, 68(\), 1-17.

Copyright of International Journal of Sport Communication is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyrightholder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Meeting Relationship-Marketing Goals Through Social Media ... · the expanded model are suggested....

Documents

Transcript of Meeting Relationship-Marketing Goals Through Social Media ... · the expanded model are suggested....